Effective January 1, 2018 Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. has merged into, and will now practice law as Houston Harbaugh, P.C. Visit Houston Harbaugh here and learn more about all the ways we can serve you.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Clarifies the Application of CASPA

After years of confusion regarding the seemingly overlapping roles of the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act ("CASPA") and the Pennsylvania Prompt Payment Act, Pennsylvania appellate courts have issued two clarifying opinions in the past three months. The first, issued by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has been discussed in these pages previously. In some ways, the Commonwealth Court opinion is a superior examination of these issues. The most recent, an opinion from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued on June 15, 2015 confirms the holding of the Commonwealth Court (although, oddly, it does not cite East Coast Paving & Sealcoating, Inc. v. North Allegheny School District), and clarifies when the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act applies to construction payment disputes versus when the Prompt Payment Act is the applicable statute.

In Clipper Pipe & Service, Inc. v. The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., No. 59 EAP 2015, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. 2015), the Supreme Court held that CASPA does not apply to any government projects. (A copy of the opinion is attached below for easy review.) Clipper - which was filed in federal court and included counts under both CASPA and the Prompt Payment Act - was certified over to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to answer a very specific question: "does [CASPA] apply to a project where the owner is a governmental entity, such as the federal government?" Id. at 3-4.

Thus, the issue addressed by the Court in Clipper was, in many senses, a straightforward statutory construction issue. "Under CASPA, 'owner' is defined, in pertinent part, as '[a] person who has an interest in the real property that is improved and who ordered the improvement to be made.' Id. § 502 (emphasis added). 'Person,' in turn, is defined as '[a] corporation, partnership, business trust, other association, estate, trust foundation or a natural individual.' Id. (emphasis added)." Id. at 2. Clipper argued that the federal government qualified as a "person" because a government is inherently nothing more than an "association of its citizens." Id. at 5. Clipper further argued that CASPA's legislative goal is to protect contractors and subcontractors and, as such, should be interpreted liberally to effect that purpose. Id. at 6.

While the Court did not find these arguments preposterous, it did dispose of them with some celerity. Governments and their agencies "are dissimilar to a 'corporation,' 'partnership' 'business trust,' 'estate,' 'trust foundation,' and 'natural individual,' among which the term 'association' appears. Cf. DEP v. Cumberland Coal Res., LP, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 102 A.3d 962, 976 (2014) (explaining that, per the doctrine of ejusdem generis, catchall phrases "should not be construed in their widest context")." Id. at 7. The Court goes a step further, though, stating that even if there were some ambiguity as to whether the government qualified as an "association," the law in Pennsylvania requires any statute to be construed in favor of the sovereign. Id. In other words, because the government gets the benefit of the doubt in interpreting the application of laws against it, CASPA cannot apply because it is not specifically denoted as subject to the law. Id. at 6-7.

The practical result of Clipper is that any contractor or subcontractor who works on a public project in Pennsylvania is limited to remedies provided by the Prompt Payment Act. These remedies are not insubstantial, but they are not nearly as robust as the remedies available under CASPA. This is true even if the dispute is between a subcontractor and contractor - in Clipper, the government was a disinterested party.

The differences in remedies are worth review. Under CASPA, a contractor or subcontractor is entitled to a penalty of 1% interest per month for failure to be paid, whereas under the Prompt Payment Act, the court has discretion to evaluate whether the nonpaying entity was acting "arbitrarily" or "capriciously." In other words, a party seeking payment has a much higher chance of collecting interest on inappropriate nonpayment under CASPA. Perhaps even more important, CASPA requires the award reasonable attorney's fees for successful claims, whereas under the Prompt Payment Act, the award of attorney's fees is entirely subject to the discretion of the court. A contractor simply has far more statutory protection under CASPA than under the Prompt Payment Act.

This case makes explicit what has been a confused issue for years: CASPA applies exclusively to private projects, while the Prompt Payment Act - regardless of the nature of the dispute - applies exclusively to public projects.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath's article "The New Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016" was published in the 2016 Fall/Winter edition of USLAW Magazine.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath's ed a CLE on the New Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 for the Western Pennsylvania chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel

Firm shareholder Alan Miller was named as the 2017 Best Lawyer Environmental Litigator of the Year and also was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Insurance Coverage.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Intellectual Property Litigation; firm shareholder Anthony Picadio was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Business Litigation; firm associate Brandon McCullough was named a 2016 Super Lawyer Rising Star in Insurance Coverage.

On May 25, 2016, Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski presented "Voir Dire and Jury Selection" with Honorable Ronald Folina, at the Crowne Plaza Pittsburgh, as part of the National Business Institute's Continuing Education Programs.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath and firm associate led and presented at a 2-hour CLE on "Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA): The New Federal Private Cause of Action for Trade Secret Misappropriation."

Firm shareholder Kelly Williams spoke at the USLAW Business to Business Litigation Exchange in San Francisco on Prosecuting and Defending Business Defamation and Commercial Disparagement Claims by or Against Competitors Including Social Media Issues.

Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski spoke on "Wacky Pennsylvania Construction Laws" at the U.S. Law Network Spring Conference in Rancho Palos Verdes California, which took place on April 7-9, 2016.

Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski was selected to serve a two year term as Education Coordinator for the Construction Law Section of the U.S. Law Network.

Firm shareholder Bridget Gillespie and firm associate Brandon McCullough served as Regional Editors and Co-Authors of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the DRI Duty to Defend Compendium which was published in February 2016.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is for educational and informative purposes. Neither it nor the website is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. It is not to be taken as legal advice on which you should rely, and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. If you require legal advice, we recommend that you contact a licensed attorney who can provide advice based on your specific factual circumstances, the jurisdiction you are in, and the appropriate law for your situation. Please do not send us confidential information unless we have specifically requested that you do so. To the extent that any prior firm results are discussed, there is no guarantee that such results will be obtained in the future. Finally, other than the PSMN® website, we have no control over the sites that we link to, so we make no representations about the content or quality of these external sites.

Office Location And Contact Information

Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C., is a Pittsburgh law firm that serves clients primarily in Pennsylvania, but also in other jurisdictions on a special admission basis.